- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Is Demography Destiny?

Unease with rapid demographic change is a major driving force in our politics. Neopopulist parties advocating tougher immigration restrictions continue to advance in Europe, most recently in Spain and the Netherlands. The more established parties of the European center-right, ineffectual at stemming immigration when in power, increasingly give rhetorical backing to enhanced restriction.

It now seems clear that at least a plurality of voters in Europe favor stark immigration limits. In the United States, President Donald Trump propelled himself past the rest of the GOP presidential field by promising strong measures to stem illegal immigration. He unexpectedly won the presidency and will quite possibly win a second term, even if he has failed to fulfill the promises he made to voters who backed him to get control over immigration.

How are we to think of an issue which produces such shockwaves to Western political systems? One tactic is simply to deny that concerns driven in part by demographic change have any factual basis, to label what the French writer Renaud Camus first dubbed “the Great Replacement” as racist, conspiratorial talk relevant only to the most ghastly extremists, such as the murderer who committed the despicable Christchurch mosque shootings.

New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo thus dismissed [1] the “racist and misogynistic theory that holds that white people face existential decline” because of rising immigration and falling birthrates. “That’s pretty much the whole argument; as a bit of rhetoric this theory is about as deep as the one pushed by flat earthers without that group’s scientific rigor.” In other words, it’s obviously and ridiculously false. But Manjoo does not go on to explain why this is so. “The future is unknowable and demography an imprecise science” he tries, by way of reassurance.


The Washington Post enlisted a demographer to explain [2] that scholars in the field have “begun coordinating…to rethink how we talk about fertility rates and changing racial and ethnic composition.” Elsewhere in the Post, the call was not for rethinking language of conversation about the demographic future, but for more or less squelching it. An editorial called [3] for Trump “to state unambiguously that the New Zealand replacement ideology is an unacceptable trope in civilized discourse.”

This was also the tactic taken by Le Monde, the Parisian paper which occupies in the French media sphere roughly the space of The Washington Post and The New York Times combined. Days after the Christchurch attack, Le Monde produced an article [4] by four journalists (called “the decoders”) to explain its ideological origins. Under a photograph of Camus—now a proper looking elderly gentleman, once linked with leading French structuralists and the author of edgy novels about gay sexuality—the authors explain that the theory is based on an “supposed established fact” that “massive” non-European immigration and higher birth rates mean that non-European populations will overtake the native populations and impose their culture and religion on the continent. 

Le Monde argues that not only is this racist in theory because it considers blacks from the French Antilles to be “replacers” even though they have been French for almost forever, but that “actual statistics contradict the core of the thesis because non-European migrants and their descendants make up only 6 percent of the French population. Curiously, Le Monde soon had to publish a correction to the statistics of its “decoders” and a week later wrote that migrants and their descendants in fact made up 12 percent of the population, not six percent. That didn’t change its condescending conclusion that “we are obviously very far from a ‘replacement.’”

The fact that the Le Monde writers felt, perhaps subconsciously, that they needed to cut in half the immigrant population figure in order to be genuinely reassuring to readers is telling in itself. The scholar Philippe Lemoine has an interesting paper about French demography on his blog [5] utilizing standard demographic projection models. Under the most conservative scenarios, with very low rates of immigration, the French whites would make up  65 percent of the population by 2100. If immigration rates double, French whites would become a minority by that date. Such projections make no claims about the future nature of French society, but simply demonstrate the essential intellectual unseriousness of Le Monde’s claim that a group which comprises 12 percent of the population in 2015 can’t possibly become a majority in three or four generations.

From reading such commentary, you would never know that demographic triumphalism is a major theme among left-wing activists, who have been crowing for years of the electoral and political power they will accrue as the white share of the population declines. Ruy Teixeira, a relative moderate in this group, writes in his 2017 book The Optimistic Leftist [6] that his side of the political divide will dominate the 21st century, and “there is little the right can do about this except adapt.”

Texiera explains that “across European countries, as in the United States, the general tendency is for immigrant/minority voters to vote left.” Migrants from Turkey in Germany, migrants of African origin in France, and people of Caribbean origin in the UK vote overwhelmingly for the Left. Regardless of variation, he concludes, “the rising immigrant/minority population is a boost for the left across advanced Western countries.” Texiera’s think tank, the Center for American Progress, has on its website a helpful interactive spot [7] where one can examine state by state when exactly whites will become minorities.

Steve Phillips, political activist and author of the Brown Is the New White [8], is more explicit in touting the retributionist promise of the new demographics. “Because of the population changes in the last fifty years, the very groups that were formerly oppressed now have the numbers to secure the political power necessary to set the country on the course to true justice and equality… so that time, attention, and massive amounts of resources are directed to the country’s communities of color.” 

Phillips’s book is in part a shoutout to a smorgasbord of leftist causes (reparations, amnesty, abolishing standardized tests) coupled with the assertion that the new demographics bring the power of a “new American majority” within reach if the Democrats only give up their futile efforts to woo moderate “swing voters.” The New American Majority is “inherently progressive” and “growing larger every day because 90 percent of population growth consists of people of color.” Its essential template is the Jesse Jackson presidential campaign of 1984, now majoritarian because of demographic change. Lest one think this argument represents a tangential radical stream within the Democratic Party, it was a New York Times best-seller endorsed by John Podesta and purported moderate Cory Booker.

Perhaps it was arguments like this which Dowell Myers, a liberal demographer from the University of Southern California, had in mind [9] when he recalled the Left’s reaction to the Census Bureau’s 2008 projection that whites in America would be a minority by 2044. Progressives couldn’t contain their enthusiasm, remembered Myers. “People went crazy. It was conquest, our day has come. They wanted to overpower them with numbers. It was demographic destiny.”

If anything is clear from all this, it’s that whether or not the subject of Western demographics is considered okay to talk about depends on one’s political point of view.

If it seems unfair to mock the trends in liberal commentary without clarifying my own ideas, I will try. An altogether possible scenario is that a politically significant slice of new immigrants (in both Europe and the United States) would choose to identify, more or less, with the existing cultures and narratives of the societies to which they immigrate. The whole concept of whiteness could shift, as it has in the past, and generally group identity issues would become less important and less adversarial, as there would be plenty of intermarriage, producing a new kind of melting pot. The necessary precondition for this would be an immigration stream which by numbers and skills admitted people who were a pretty good match to the existing society—that is, an immigration tailored to facilitate assimilation, more middle-class than not.

This is clearly not the way Texiera, Phillips, and others on the Left expect things to pan out, and the evidence thus far seems to favor them. The academic performance of new immigrant groups is uneven [10], which has predictable consequences for the prospects of the poorer performers to advance into the middle class.

One need also consider the dramatic emergence of a large political/cultural movement devoted to anti-whiteness, now traveling under the umbrella of combatting “white privilege.” Its dominant message is that it is bad to be white, a sentiment which even white people (like presidential aspirant Elizabeth Warren) seem to have internalized and sought to benefit from. Groups whose members once sought to be identified as white for census purposes (like Middle Easterners) now seek to be classified and considered non-white. So while there could be renewed movement towards assimilation and the melting pot—and one can point to myriad examples in the United States and Western Europe where this is happening almost despite the prevailing cultural winds—for now at least the strongest winds are pushing in the opposite direction.

Scott McConnell is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars. Follow him on Twitter @ScottMcConnell9 [11].

76 Comments (Open | Close)

76 Comments To "Is Demography Destiny?"

#1 Comment By Mark Krvavica On May 7, 2019 @ 7:33 pm

U.S. immigration policy is, for lack of better words, “Hitler’s revenge” on America for winning World War II. Because of the demographics created by that policy, the Central North American Empire (U.S.) is now a third world banana republic. It’s time to admit this.

#2 Comment By Jeremy Buxton On May 7, 2019 @ 10:55 pm

Immigrants whatever their colour tend to vote left because they mostly start in less well paid jobs, living in lower income areas. Hence the Irish in the nineteenth century becoming staunch Democrats.
What always matters is culture. A mass of poor African and Middle Eastern migrants entering Europe is cultural poison. Skilled people with middle class values are the only immigrants that should be encouraged.

#3 Comment By Creme Fraiche On May 8, 2019 @ 3:30 am

For reasons too numerous to list here, this is yet another article that shows how american conservatives are alone in the world. As much as they would like to link their concerns to those of white europeans, it’s just not possible if you take the time to do basic research and learn history. No other Conservative party in the world believes that is ok to have no state managed childcare or maternity leave, that hospitals can work like bank robbers or that education is better when it costs more. Basically the only thing American conservatives can say they share with Europeans is that they would also like to reduce immigration. The problem is that American conservatives cannot even articulate why. At least Europeans can say that they are trying reduce immigration to make sure they can provide for their current citizens. Americans are tying to reduce immigration to … preserve whiteness? It’s pathetic.

Also, you’ve glazed over the history of France in a terrible way. The French West Indies, or as we say, Les Antilles, are a part of France. All the products you buy there are from the EU but mostly France. Try to find California chardonnay or Argentinian Merlot. Nope. Hope you like French wine and French cheese. French bakeries every few blocks. French health care system. French education system. French immigration system. Best infrastructure in the Caribbean hands down. A few white mafia-like families control distribution of all goods in and out of the islands, but that’s another story. These islands are the homes of FRENCH black people who worked as slaves for centuries to make France rich. One interesting fact is that during the French révolution (1789-1799 approx), slaves were essentially free, but once Napoleon came into power he saw that the state needed money, so he re-established slavery in 1802. This was the key cause of the Haitian revolution (1802-1803). It’s really because of these consecutive wars and greed that Napoleon sold the Louisiana purchase to the United States in 1803 for $15 million… the French state was broke. He then crowned himself emperor in Notre Dame cathedral just a few months after Haiti won its independence in 1804. (mission accomplished !??)

Today in the French West Indies there is an accomplished middle class of boomer aged lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. They are French in the same way that African Americans are American. However, most high school graduates go straight to Paris because they can’t study in the islands. In fact, it’s the islands that are facing an “invasion” ….. of white French retirees. Many actual residents cannot move back because their aren’t enough jobs. This is causing much inter-generational pain and is very similar to the plight of islanders all over the world. In fact it’s similar to the problems of many young people who would like to move back to rural America too.

Here is another thing you probably don’t know: What really kicked off the migration to France was the agency called Le Bumidom (Bureau pour le développement des migrations dans les départements d’outre-mer or Bureau for the development of migrations in the over seas departments), which provided free tickets to overseas citizens to come to work in the mainland during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Hundreds of thousands of people came but didn’t get access to nice jobs they were promised (most ended up maids or doing other low skilled work) and most never made enough money to go back home. They concentrated in massive concrete HLMs ( public housing projects, Corbusier’s greatest hits) in the Paris suburbs along with immigrants (or ex french subjects as some say) from North Africa and Subsaharan Africa, and so was born the modern multicultural France, or as Fox News calls them, the “no go zones” (eye roll).

So there is the history of the French West Indies in a nutshell, and it is a very different history than that of Francophone African colonies. The migration was completely financed by an opportunistic French state. Later when the jobs went to China or Romania or whatever, some white people wanted people to go home, but it was too late. I really challenge American conservatives to not take French conservatives statements at face value. Their values, history and tradition are completely different than yours. They define things like freedom and human rights differently than Americans. They recoil at American conservatives focus on capitalism “a tout prix” and the neo-liberal worship of the individual above family and social ties. Marine Le Pen is basically a xenophobic progressive when placed in an American context. This combination might not exist in the US, land of 2 political parties, but all types of mash ups are possible in France. . ..While one can say that French history is horrifying, they have shown a far greater capacity to care for their own and think beyond whiteness….. to arrive at (surprise!) a focus on class and inequality.

By the way, to learn more about this part of history, you can visit Guadeloupe’s Memorial ACTe , the museum dedicated to slavery by François Holland’s administration in 2015. [12]

#4 Comment By Liam On May 8, 2019 @ 8:07 am

Anti Whiteism is the real motive behind the Religion of PC.

Do the ‘anti racists’ care about the ongoing torture, rape and murder of minority Whites in South Africa?

Diversity just means finding Anything white and Chasing Them Down until its Acceptably non white

If this were imposed on All and Only black peoples, wouldn’t it be obviously Anti Black? Wouldn’t it be called Genoc-de?

It’s code for removing white people Only.

Is this not Anti White?
Is this not White G…?

#5 Comment By The Anti-Gnostic On May 8, 2019 @ 8:28 am

at least, was the one offered by Mr. Rhode, my sixth-grade teacher, a crusty Battle of the Bulge vet who never pulled punches: Mandate interracial marriage and in three generations the problem will be solved.

Thank God that crazed old man never got anywhere near the levers of power.

#6 Comment By The Anti-Gnostic On May 8, 2019 @ 8:32 am

I’m old enough to remember paternal white America. It really was a free country then. If you were male and white. Those bad days are over. But now nobody is free in this has been country. And the Republic itself is in steep decline.

Diversity, liberty or equality; choose one.

#7 Comment By The Anti-Gnostic On May 8, 2019 @ 8:45 am

Has any country that’s gone from majority white to majority non-white ever improved by any metrics? Any city?

I imagine Ukraine would do better if you replaced the Ukrainians with Koreans but I can’t think of any other formulation I’d be willing to bet my child’s future living standards on.

#8 Comment By JoS. S. Laughon On May 8, 2019 @ 10:12 am

Everyone citing California as what happens when they let too many Mexicans in are being intellectually lazy.

The majority of Hispanic Californians don’t vote either because they are too young or because they are foreign-born. While 38% of all Californians are Hispanic in some way, only 28% would be eligible to vote, and only 18% of actual voters in CA are Hispanic.

It ignores the fact that California whites are just to the left of the rest of the country and have been since the late 19th century.


#9 Comment By Lert345 On May 8, 2019 @ 11:03 am


If the racism you experienced was vile enough that you want to see white people decline, why didn’t you move to a country with a majority of brown people? Surely those countries are way better.

#10 Comment By mrscracker On May 8, 2019 @ 11:10 am

Creme Fraiche ,
Thank you so much for your comments. I really appreciate you sharing them.
I have no experience in the French West Indies but some of my family used to live in Haiti & I currently live in a French speaking part of Louisiana.
History is much more complicated than what’s presented in textbooks & so are Creole cultures. Historically, a majority of Creole people of color worked a slaves but they also could be slave owners themselves. Toussaint Louverture is one example.

The wealthiest antebellum plantation owner in the parish next to us was a Creole gentleman of color. And there were many others like him. Some plantations were owned by Creole women of color too.

#11 Comment By mrscracker On May 8, 2019 @ 11:21 am

Alex (the one that likes Ike) says:

“Here’s the little math I posted on this website several times in 2016 while predicting that Trump’s victory was imminent unless Democrats nominated someone campaigning on working class issues like their candidates had used to, not on incoherent progressive rants.”


One of my children works as a demographer for the state & does research with the Census Bureau.
In previous eras, census workers would identify the race of each individual in a household but nowadays that’s left up to the person giving them the data. You can self identify your race as you choose now.

#12 Comment By Ready for the Apocalypse On May 8, 2019 @ 1:08 pm

“Cry me a river. As a brown American person who has been on the receiving end of vile racism my whole life, I say, Bring It On” (etc.)

This kind of “let’s stick it to Whitey” rhetoric is probably doing more to fuel white nationalism nowadays than anything else.

#13 Comment By Myron K Hudson On May 8, 2019 @ 2:22 pm

I lived in Hawaii for 9 years. We whites are a minority there. It was no big deal.

#14 Comment By Andrew On May 8, 2019 @ 5:04 pm

Resistance. Resistance. Resistance.

#15 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On May 8, 2019 @ 5:18 pm

One of my children works as a demographer for the state & does research with the Census Bureau.
In previous eras, census workers would identify the race of each individual in a household but nowadays that’s left up to the person giving them the data. You can self identify your race as you choose now.
Certainly. And, as someone knowing quite a few languages and traveling quite often, I can even add that such an approach is used outside the US as well. Which makes the numbers I’ve posted even more important – people who want to be identified as somebodies are much fiercer in asserting their identity than those who simply are those somebodies. E.g., a castizo will be preoccupied about his whiteness much more than a blanco.

#16 Comment By Tom Cullem On May 8, 2019 @ 5:26 pm

The demographics are far more nuanced than articles like this admit. White Americans may be less than 50% at some point, but the remaining 54% or so will be split amongst several groups; white Americans will remain the single biggest voting bloc. Hispanics, Asian, white Hispanics, blacks – they are not one monolithic bloc. Asians and Hispanics are the fastest growing group, and the increase in interracial and mixed race families means that the black population, particularly, is not projected to grow beyond its current percentage of the population – 13%.

America is most certainly becoming less white – but it is also not turning “brown”. It’s turning somewhat more tan.

The triumphos on one side and the hysterics on the other are both buying into narratives that are more nuanced and unlikely to reflect the reality in 40 years.

#17 Comment By Josep On May 8, 2019 @ 8:00 pm

As far as cutting immigration levels, I’m much more sympathetic to that argument for Europe than I am for non-European countries. Europeans are the native population of the continent. If they want to cut immigration to preserve their majority there, I have no problem with it so long as that is the view of the majority of the population. America, Canada, Australia, and NZ are very different places though. These are NOT white countries. White people are not native to these places so I am much less sympathetic to that argument for these lands.

I’m pretty much this too to some degree. To this day I’m left wondering how people complaining about whites becoming a minority in those four New World countries come to terms with the fact that the original white Britons who came to them in the first place drove out (?) the indigenous Native Americans and Aborigines, sometimes forcing them into the Anglo-Saxon lifestyle. It’s as if the lives of whites mattered more than those of nonwhites, let alone the natives of those lands. This doesn’t justify nonwhite immigration to those same four countries, but at the same time it should be food for thought on the hypocritical double standards some people hold when it comes to immigration.

Side note: there seems to be a group of self-entitled Christians who favor racial segregation, oppose interracial marriage, and somehow believe egalitarianism is anti-Christian. The last one is rather troubling; does it mean whites would lose their monopoly on dominance or something?

#18 Comment By The Anti-Gnostic On May 8, 2019 @ 9:18 pm

The triumphos on one side and the hysterics on the other are both buying into narratives that are more nuanced and unlikely to reflect the reality in 40 years.

So what you’re saying is it’s going to be more like Brazil than South Africa.

#19 Comment By MM On May 8, 2019 @ 10:32 pm

Sci-880: “If most of the population wanted to cut immigration levels in America, then it would be fine if that happened. The thing is, most of the population DOES NOT want to cut immigration levels. Most people either want levels to stay the same or INCREASE!”

Firstly, wanted the level to stay the same vs. wanting the level to increase are not the same position.

Secondly, I’ve already cited survey results that shows majority support, strongly in fact, for reducing the current level of legal immigration. I’ll do so again, whether you like it or not:


“In your opinion, about how many legal immigrants should be admitted to the U.S. each year?”

– Less than 500,000: 63% total
– Less than 500,000, by ethnicity: white 66%, black 63%, Hispanic 55%
– Less than 500,000, by political party: Republican 79%, Democrat 53%, Independent 59%
– Less than 500,000, by political ideology: Conservative 76%, Moderate 65%, Liberal 42%

– 500,000 to less than 1 million: 18% total
– 500,000 to less than 1 million, by ethnicity: white 16%, black 18%, Hispanic 22%
– 500,000 to less than 1 million, by political party: Republican 14%, Democrat 21%, Independent 19%
– 500,000 to less than 1 million, by political ideology: Conservative 14%, Moderate 18%, Liberal 22%

– Over 1 million: 19% total

For perspective, over 1 million immigrants obtained permanent legal residency in the U.S. in the most recent year available, according to DHS.

Additionally, a strong majority of the public also want to change the composition of legal immigrants, according to the same survey:

“Do you think immigration priority for those coming to the U.S. should be based on a person’s ability to contribute to America as measured by their education and skills or based on a person having relatives in the U.S.?”

– Ability to contribute: 79% total
– Ability to contribute, by ethnicity: white 79%, black 85%, Hispanic 72%
– Ability to contribute, by political party: Republican 87%, Democrat 72%, Independent 79%
– Ability to contribute, by political ideology: Conservative 89%, Moderate 81%, Liberal 65%

“Would you favor or oppose a congressional deal that gives undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents work permits and a path to citizenship in exchange for increasing merit preference over preference for relatives, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, and funding barrier security on the U.S. Mexico border?”

– Favor: 65% total
– Favor, by ethnicity: white 62%, black 64%, Hispanic 68%
– Favor, by political party: Republican 64%, Democrat 64%, Independent 67%
– Favor, by political ideology: Conservative 68%, Moderate 63%, Liberal 63%

Thirdly, illegal immigration is a part of this discussion, and I’ve seen no survey where any Americans admitted they wanted that phenomenon to continue as-is, or increase for that matter.

Lastly, you’re already on record here at TAC as rejecting those survey results, for ideological, not scientific, reasons. You even sarcastically said “Now public opinion matters?”, which is indicative of your contempt for the majority opinion on this issue.

Your rubbish isn’t any more persuasive now that it was when I first engaged you on this issue. And you’re still in the minority, bu the way, wanted higher levels of legal immigration.

You ought to change your handle, by the way, because judging by your comments, you’re nothing like an actual scientist, social or otherwise.

#20 Comment By MM On May 8, 2019 @ 10:47 pm

Sci-880: “Have you ever met a Hispanic person?”

I have Hispanic relatives, sir, from Mexico to be precise. And you’ve totally avoided the issue of conservative, moderate, and liberal opinion amongst U.S. Hispanics, half of whom consider themselves white.

Since you base all of your opinions on anecdotes, perhaps I should do the same? Because it doesn’t sound like you know any Hispanic Americans whatsover, and rely on idelogical stereotypes to pigeonhole the entire “brown” population.

“As far as voting is concerned, you do realize that the average age for a Hispanic person is like 14 right?”

No, sir, you’re either uninformed or a liar on that point. Probably the latter:


Non-white Hispanics, about half all Hispanics, have a median age of 28. White Hispanics have a median age of somewhere between 28 and 43, which is the median age for white Americans.

“Non-white supremacist? Lol what does that even mean?”

It’s an accurate description of you based on your own comments. You don’t like white people and you want to see their share of the population shrink. I believe in other discussions you’ve actually said that middle-aged and older white Americans should die off quicker and expedite that process. And you don’t hold that opinion for NO reason, you have some political motivation for doing so.

Yep, that’s what you are, without question.

#21 Comment By Pitiful Puppydog On May 9, 2019 @ 1:55 pm

Anyone whether white black Palestinian Israeli who views fertility as a weapon fills me with utter disgust, considering the planet’s vast overpopulation.

And it’s not even mainly disgust at the human species killing themselves via this sort of thing, more that they’re going to take most of the other species on the planet with them in this ongoing mass extinction event.

So sure, I guess if too many Muslims are sullying your Christian country, breed breed breed! And vice-versa. If your country’s economic pyramid scheme is in danger of being exposed due to too many old people, breed breed breed!

Not that life and family and raising young aren’t fantastic. But please stop at two, max. If the Earth’s humans all die due to overpopulation, your racism and jingoism and religious bigotry aren’t going to matter. Of course maybe that’s the point of some, to outnumber the rivals when the gods come down to battle it out and send the infidels to hell. Let’s all die for ragnarok.

#22 Comment By mrscracker On May 9, 2019 @ 4:22 pm

Pitiful Puppydog:”Not that life and family and raising young aren’t fantastic. But please stop at two, max. If the Earth’s humans all die due to overpopulation, your racism and jingoism and religious bigotry aren’t going to matter.”


The problem is that we can’t convince most folks to even attempt a replacement level birthrate-slightly more than 2.0 children per couple. And that’s becoming a global phenomena for the most part.
People are still “breeding” to some extent but not reproducing themselves in sufficient numbers to halt the growing age imbalance in the population.
Increasing numbers of elderly & a dwindling work force of young people can strain not only Social Security but other services like the NHS in the UK.

#23 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On May 9, 2019 @ 6:38 pm

Not that life and family and raising young aren’t fantastic. But please stop at two, max.

Depends on each specific region. Excessive and insufficient fertility are both bad. And still will be, even if you are an isolated country with monolithic ethnic, religious and cultural composition and no immigrants capable of reaching you.

#24 Comment By MM On May 9, 2019 @ 9:29 pm

Pitiful: “Anyone whether white black Palestinian Israeli who views fertility as a weapon fills me with utter disgust.”

It’s ironic that in the U.S. the same people using demographics as a weapon are the same people arguing for population control to address climate change, but not immigration restrictions oddly enough.

Of course, they don’t really believe in population control for those groups that tend to have more children than others. They’d sound awfully racist taking that argument to its logical conclusion.

#25 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On May 10, 2019 @ 4:48 pm

They’d sound awfully racist taking that argument to its logical conclusion.

… Not that they knew what “logic”, “reason” and “science” mean. Who would have thought in, say, the 1950s, that the progressive ideology would become a religious cult, anti-scientific to the core and blindly denying any data that contradicts the dogmas of their faith? But here it is. Actually, it was the first strike of poetic justice that keeps on befalling them – the one that took place yet before 2016 and the ongoing conquest of the European Union by “populists”. Just think about it: to become the most dogmatic and totalitarian religion on Earth, while being too craven to take up arms, forsake their personal privileges and fight like the ISIS. Poor dears. It must be an incessant meltdown for them. A tantrum 24/7. An afflictione clunium in perpetuo.

#26 Comment By Johannes de silentio On May 11, 2019 @ 10:12 pm

* Vote for Donald Trump *

(In case he starts the third world war, you cannot vote, and so my advise is safe.)

The U.N. has the following demographic prognosis:
By the year 2000 (appr.):
The Americas, 1 billion
Europe: 1 billion
Africa: 1 billion
Asia: 3 billion
By the year 2100 (appr.):
The Americas, 1 billion
Europe: 1 billion
Africa: 4 billion
Asia: 5 billion

If democratic capitalism is a provisional means for an economic growth that meets the material needs of natural population growth, then several questions must be asked: Is this democracy centralized, with the (world) government, or subsidiary, with the people(s), and is this capitalism centralized, with the financial institutions, or distributed, with the people. What are material needs? And what about other than material needs? And what if growth cannot go on forever?

Especially, economists speak of the primary, secondary, tertiary, and quarternary enterprises, respectively, agriculture and fishing, industries, services, and entertaining. In ancient societies, these four levels constituted a pyramide like diagram, but in modern societies, this pyramide like diagram is upside down. That is, people used to live in small villages, but have moved to big cities, and local naturalia economies have given way to global money economy: globalization.

And especially, politicians often seem to forget that law enforcement as well as national defence demand self sacrifice, as does caring for children, old, and sick. Friendships are at the heart of self sacrifice, and as anthropologists tell us that humans are capable of personal relationships within societies of about one hundred and fifty people (ones tribe), our question of other than material needs is not at all a new question.

Philosophy and religion must return to the public mind, but with corruption of institutions by wealth, pleasure, power, and honour, in return for nothing but empty words, people who seek God must prepare for hard pilgrimage.